Q2 - Recently, reviewers of patent applications

[b91302310]

I am confused by the correct answer. Could anyone explain why (A) is right?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

Mice are not domesticated farm animals. So if (A) is true, the restrictions cited by the patent reviewers don't apply to the genetically engineered mouse.

[catie0128]

I see how the answer is A, but why can't it be E: because the mouse was designed by genetic engineering and not conventional breeding and therefore can be allowed.

[bbirdwell]

I see how the answer is A, but why can't it be E: because the mouse was designed by genetic engineering and not conventional breeding and therefore can be allowed.

Not quite. "New animal varieties" are not allowed, period. We're given that in the argument.

(E) simply adds that, in addition to genetically engineered ones, they've even rejected patents for conventionally bred animals, under the same reasoning (new variety). This doesn't weaken.

[tianzhuojingwen]

"New animal varieties" are not allowed, period. We're given that in the argument.

I don't get it. If A is correct, then E should be correct too because A allows new animal varieties but not domesticated new varieties, and E allows new varieties but not conventional breeding one. Aren't these the same reasoning??

[maryadkins]

Let's tackle this whole question since we haven't, yet.

The core of the reviewers' argument here is:

Rule prohibits patent for new animal varieties

+

Mouse is a new animal variety

-->

Genetically engineered mouse doesn't get a patent

(A) is correct for the reason Brian mentioned above.

(B) is wrong because it doesn't matter if it's first. Should it get the patent or not?

(C) if anything seems to strengthen.

(D) We're talking about animals not plants.

(E) if anything, also seems to strengthen. As Brian noted above, (E) tells us that there's even a different kind of "new animal variety" outside of genetic modification that is ALSO not allowed to get patents. How would this weaken?

Re-read (E). It does not say it allows new varieties that are genetically modified. It just says it DOESN'T allow new varieties that aren't. It is adding a kind that is not allowed, not saying one is not allowed but the other one is.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

(A) This looks good. If the restrictions pertain only to domesticated farm animals, then this weakens considerably the relationship between the premise and conclusion, because presumably the genetically engineered mouse isn’t a farm animal. Keep for now
(B) Irrelevant. Whether or not the grant application was the first of it’s kind is not relevant to the argument.
(C) This shows that the reviewers have set a precedent on refusing requests for new animal varieties, this potentially strengthens.
(D) This shows that the patent reviewers have set a precedent for approving genetically engineered PLANT varieties. However, this argument discusses new animal varieties, out of scope. Get rid of this
(E) Again, this shows that in the past they’ve refused patents for new animal varieties developed through conventional breeding programs. This strengthens because they are a subset of all animal varieties that are prohibited from receiving patent approval, get rid of this.

We're left with (A) because the other ones are clearly wrong. Pick it and move on.

I see how the answer is A, but why can't it be E: because the mouse was designed by genetic engineering and not conventional breeding and therefore can be allowed.

E is just saying that they refused new animal varieties that were developed through conventional means as opposed to being genetically modified. Read carefully, this is a trap answer choice and LSAC is banking on the fact that in reading this, test makers will make an erroneous inference such as the one you made and fall for it. The latter part of (E) is just an embedded clause/modifier that describes the way in which these particular animal varieties were developed. You assumed that because they've refused grant applications for animal varieties that were developed using conventional means that they haven't done the same to those created through unorthodox means, however, we don't know that. The premise clearly states that patents cannot be granted for any new animal varieties, regardless of how they were developed.